A Conservative at Wild Goose

Devin, a new friend of mine, has a post on Patheos about what it was like being a conservative (young, restless, Reformed) at the Wild Goose Festival. Definitely worth the read:

The fact of the matter is that so much has been said about the Emergent Church and it’s leaders that is utterly bogus. There has been very accurate assessments of their methodology, philosophy and hermeneutic. It can’t be denied that overall they have been painted as the boogeyman and many of their critics would rather shove them out of their congregant’s sights instead of really assessing what is fueling the movement. The Church is infected with slack anti-intellectualism when it comes to critiques that come from the outside. It is a tradition of men to ignore the popular philosophers of our day because they don’t share our theology. We all know that much of the material is liberal theology that has been tweaked for our time in an attempt to get Jesus into places that are usually afraid of Him. While I don’t line up with how this is done, I have seen them provoke more thought about the person of Christ among secular communities far more than I’ve seen in any street preaching venture. There, I said it. [READ THE REST]

I was listening to Brian Mclaren at a Q and A session. Basic questions of his beliefs are asked, and he doesn’t answer them. He literally talks about something completely different every time he is asked a simple religious question.

My statement is not bogus. If an icon of the EC thinks that the afterlife isn’t important- explicitly stated by him while dodging a question – something is wrong with this religious movement.

John, why do you care what Brian thinks about the afterlife? Brian doesn’t talk much about it because his focus is on what Christians should be doing here and now, rather than worrying about lies beyond the grave. If Brian doesn’t talk about it, why are you concerned? Unless you’re just looking for an excuse to throw around the “H” word.

John Edmond

Karl Barth was a Universalist (or whatever nuance he held to) no one really ever calls him a heretic. Brian should be able to answer basic, basic biblical beliefs. You libs… I’m sorry, progressives are the ones more ready to throw the “H” word around, when you define your opposition as haters. I’m not out to define theological libs as haters, just want them to be honest, which Brian doesn’t appear to be.

1) **The most interesting dynamic is that I really feel that somebody could be accepted within the Emergent movement no matter what belief about Christianity they hold. If you are a nice person who is gracious to all people and willing to hear people out, you could be a voice within the Emergent movement without compromising what you believe.** This seems very unlikely. John Piper, Al Mohler, Kevin DeYoung, and D.A. Carson are presumably nice people who are gracious to others and willing to hear them out (as evidenced by their engagement with the writings of Emergent leaders), but they would NOT be accepted within the Emergent movement. I do not have a vested interest in defending neo-Calvonists nor Emergents because I am not at home in either group; they exhibit all the signs of what James Davison Hunter calls the politics of ressentiment.

2) **They don’t care if they are seen as heretics.** Conceding that perception is not reality, Emergents should care very much if they are heretics. Where is the holy self-criticism within the movement? Every group needs a devil and for the Emergents the devil is conservative Evangelicalism. Imagine what would happen in the absence of such a devil. The group would wither. If there are trees that bear bad fruit in the Emergent orchard, they should cut them down and throw them into the fire.